User talk:Willondon/Archives/2022 Mar - Apr

Following up on David Melnick's passing

Hello again. The obituary for David Melnick is running this week in the print edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and is viewable online so I've gone ahead and submitted a change again to the page about him, with reference this time. Hope I've done it right! I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'd be grateful if you could give it a look. Best-- Rmelca (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look, and you've done it right. The article speaks to an artful and insightful intellect, applied to a passionate perception of society and the world. My condolences again. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Why

Why you did this to me will... i respected you--109.52.244.252 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I take no responsibility for other people's poor judgement. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Who says the Middle Ages isn’t inclusive to the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries?

How are they not medieval? (209.64.131.42 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)209.64.131.42)

The burden of proof is on the editor that makes the change or addition. I don't need to find someone who says those centuries aren't included. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubling the cube

You reverted Doubling the cube to a version where the math was so badly formatted as to make it incorrect. Template mathematics and proper LaTeX mathematics should not be mixed, and vertical fractions in exponents in inline mathematical formulas are a bad idea, but more to the point, your version lost the exponents and just displayed the exponents on the same line as the things they were supposed to be exponents of, turning them into vulgar fractions with the wrong value. If you had read and understood the article talk page you would know this. Please pay more attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We are editing simultaneously today. As you left this message, I left a message on your talk page to explain. It's not a matter of me paying attention, it's a matter of us editing the article at the same time. In all likelihood, the versions you were looking at were not the product of my edits. If you step through the versions as you and I edit, you will see that my "fix" rendered the same as yours, it was just not as good "behind the scenes", and I defer to your superior knowledge of the different markup schemes. Bottom line, with only a few ruffled feathers, the article stands as it should, and as it did after I made the second of my edits; compare the versions between your edits and the last of mine and you will see that I already corrected the article to your version. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Note added next day: looking back, it is not the case that I managed to revert it to the proper version. I really messed up there. And with that, I stop digging.) _signed, Willondon (talk)

AfD comment sought

As you were involved in the debate about setting up an article about one convoy protestor with specific interest in notability pre-2022, I invite you to comment on the AfD currently happening on the article BJ_Dichter. CT55555 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of 💩 From Talkpage & Message Left On Mine

I don’t understand the revert. If we can’t talk about this on a talk page then where’s the talk page’s talk page to talk about this? I think there’s a reason Wikipedia hasn’t blocked use of this symbol. I think if you don’t like it maybe you should propose a rule instead or reverting it. No policy against it and therefore seems to just be a subjective move to revert. 96.88.217.197 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with the emoji. I don't know where you got that idea. Your edit [1] didn't have anything to do with the article Agriculture in North Korea. I thought I expressed this pretty clearly in my edit summary: "not related to improving article". _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Heera Rajagopal

Can you please stop removing and restoring the personal information? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Drmies. I use "show difference", save, and check "compare selected revisions" to find I've deleted more than I intended. Obviously, my setup is not in synch with what's going on with that page. I think I'll put down the shovel now. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Waelder ISD page

I am confused as to why my edits were undone. I added sources to the basic information, a map of the school district, and photos of the campus building. I also added information (not encouraging a vote one way or another) for the upcoming bond on the May 7 ballot. I updated information that was posted in 2009.

This is my first time editing a page. So, I am really confused by having my efforts undone. If you look at the Jan. 27, 2022 afenda I used as source for the bond, you will see that I was contracted by the district to provide information.

Thanks!Ex-Journo (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the page just before I reverted you [2] (for the record). Some of your edits were OK, but a great many of them were not. For instance the listing of a number of staff members such as admin assistants, secretaries and accounting clerk. And the article shouldn't have a long, detailed list of the improvements covered by the bond issue. The pictures were a problem, too. One was featured twice; one was of the cafeteria, so not really notable; and the main picture was far too large, dominating the page. There's a guide at WikiProject Schools - Article advice, which is a good introduction for what's expected in school related articles.

What I will do going forward is, instead of reverting all your edits, I will visit the article later, and make the changes I think are required to bring it to Wikipedia standards. I don't want to discourage the improvements you did make. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Marylebone Boys' School Page Edits

Hi Willondon,

Thanks for your feedback on the edits to the school page.

I do have a couple of questions, however on these edits if you could please clarify as to why they have been reverted:

- Removed links such as West End Extra on the current page are because they are dead links, the others can be included, but aren't so relevant now. - We have found many examples of where schools' live pages self-reference from their own websites with their websites as a primary source of information - why is this allowed for pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_Free_School? - Pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oratory_School provide all the content of a school's mission statement without expressly saying so

Thanks for the other feedback, I will look to include these.

--PAHeadteacher MBS (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(Note: refers to talk page feedback I posted)

Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice is the go-to guide for schools.

• It's recommended to keep dead links, because it's still useful for future editors to find an alternate source or a new URL for the original. You can also mark them with a {{Dead link}} template, so lists can be compiled, and other editors and bots can have a go at finding an up-to-date link.
• Secondary sources are prized, while primary sources are often dismissed. It depends on what they're being used for. There's establishing a fact, and establishing notability. If the school's website says "our cafeteria offers many vegetarian dishes", it's vulnerable to deletion as self-serving cruft. If a reliable newspaper says "the trend toward vegetarian alternatives is growing in the big cities, but School Name brings that choice to regions all too often lacking in variety", there's your noteworthiness. Things like the current head teacher, school colours, current year's budget, enrollment, etc. are usually not covered by secondary sources, so primary sources like the school's web page are accepted, it being understood by consensus that those are nevertheless noteworthy things.
• I couldn't see where the school missions were laid out in West London Free School or London Oratory School, even as a paraphrase.
  • West London Free School had many sources from The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and Evening Standard, etc.
  • London Oratory School had some, too, but I did notice under "Curriculum" phrases like "broad range of subjects" (who says it's broad?) and "students work towards", which weren't even sourced to the school website.

Many guidelines are applied only on an "objection basis", and things may [3] or may not get deleted. School articles can be a grey area, and they're not as likely to come to the attention of editors as do general interest articles. In the guideline at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there's a principle described in "What about article x?". In any case, Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia that relies on consensus supported by guidelines and policies that develop over time.

On a general note: I reverted your edit wholesale [4]. It made a number of changes in one go. A series of tiny little edits makes for a messy edit history for the article. On the other hand, splitting up one large edit into "logical" or "thematic" chunks, especially if it's been reverted, can help isolate the objectionable parts from things that may go uncontested. Hope that all helps with your editing. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Lefty the robot.

Hi. Thanks for your edits. I was wondering if there is a way to indicate the page number of the newspaper in which the article appeared. I tried just adding |Page=51| but it didn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMSavage (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I got it to work. I guess that parameter is case sensitvie, so it's got to be all lowercase. The templates usually don't care about that. Oh, well. You learn something new every day. It's exhausting. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Port Neches–Groves High School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "unsourced, unexplained" as they say Le Marteau (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to "don't template the regulars"?

I haven't readded it. The reason I added it was because it was a recent addition from an IP editor who was also trying to mass delete something. Rather than have the alumnus addition get caught up in that, I did it separately. It seemed to meet the very low bar for most such additions. There was a Wiki article about the person, his article said he attended the high school, and I checked the history back to Jan 2021 to make sure the high school wasn't a recent addition. Anyway (like most such entries) there is no source to say he attended, so I'm not going to stand by the edit. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Millie Bobby Brown

Regarding her deafness, Early Life says she has lost all hearing in one ear. That qualifies with the category I added. So, will you re-add it or can I?Mcc1789 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops. I took care of re-adding it. I searched on "deaf"; should have searched on "hearing loss". Thanks for bringing it to my attention in a way that assumed good faith. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks.Mcc1789 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please approve my page

Hello please I need your help in publish this page it a personal page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboyjp (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service to promote things. Wikipedia is for articles on things that other publications have written about. You should find a web host that is suited for writing web pages on personal projects. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement from 2600:1700:3ae0:8180:75e9:69bb:5776:276c

No, I am properly sourcing YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. It is not your job to hide the truth!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3AE0:8180:75E9:69BB:5776:276C (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(This stems from the editor being told on their talk page that their edits are not properly sourced because the New York Post is considered unreliable at Wikipedia (see: WP:NYPOST)

Propaganda techniques notwithstanding, you repeating your edits over and over, and ignoring Wikipedia's opinion on the reliability of the New York Post will not change anything, except your ability to continue disrupting things. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Duty cycles

You may possibly find these these two shortcuts useful further down the line: WP:CHOICE, WP:VOLUNTEER. If I miscalculated, please ignore my rambling. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your direction. It never hurts to read that advice again. I fully appreciate the concept that engagement with Wikipedia is both voluntary and not required on any sort of schedule, or at all. You might appreciate my talk page response from User talk:Willondon/Archives/2021#Unsourced?. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I just may use that. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your contributions to Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident. Sahaib (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank You for fixing my attempt at expanding the history on Cardinality

Finnish Idea (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'm glad you didn't use a sheep to congratul... contributi..counting...*snore* Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop Vandalismus Threats

A copy of warnings that I and others left on the IPs talk page

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Boeing 747, you may be blocked from editing. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.90.68 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop being Child with Threats

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --188.96.90.68 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I can see where all the warnings on your talk page could seem like threats. You could also view them as advice that you are going to get blocked if you continue to edit the way you have been. The problem is that your edits, legitimate or not, come with no explanation, and you have shown a complete failure to engage in discussion to explain and justify them, instead, just reverting them back in to articles. Numerous editors have reverted them, so there's obviously a problem. Discuss. Otherwise, you'll just be blocked. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

About mid-credits and post-credits on plot summaries

So, the rules of Wikipedia require that the mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:87F:CDD0:7524:E41D:FAE7:18D2 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually call them rules, but you got it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. 2601:18D:87F:CDD0:7524:E41D:FAE7:18D2 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you removing my external links?

I have complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements, under the Wikimedia Terms of Use and have disclosed mY "employer, client and affiliation." Again, I I have posted such a disclosure on my user page at User:Hannahgoodmanvto, and the template

has been used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:

.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgoodmanvto (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the purpose of those templates. They are to alert other editors that there may be a conflict of interest affecting the edits. And indeed there is. It seems their purpose was to guide readers to information about your employer, not to improve Wikipedia. That's why I deleted the links. Those templates don't give you license to add promotional links to articles. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please STOP STALKING me

Please Stop to Stalk me --90.186.249.152 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. Some of the pages you are editing are on my watch list. I have placed many pleas on your talk page to use an edit summary, so we can have a better idea of why you are making the changes that you are. Why take the time to engage here, and not "engage" with at least edit summaries if not article talk page discussion. Your experience here will not last long if you continue to reinstate your edits without any explanation, and no reponse to reverts other than "Go away!".

That said, if you wish me to avoid posting on the talk page for the static IP you are borrowing, request it here, and I will grant your request. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Chuck’s image

That image of Chuck McGill wearing a space blanket is going to be deleted if we don’t do something about it. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted the removal on the basis that there was no explanation given. Now I see the reason at "File:Chuck McGill.png". So the place to argue for maintaining it would be at File talk:Chuck McGill.png. I'll review things a bit later, when I have time. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I made a case for retaining it at File talk:Chuck McGill.png. How I loves me a bit of Wikilawyering before dinner time. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It does have a purpose in the article in that it shows Chuck wearing his space blank which is a significant character trait of his. The Optimistic One (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hello there Willendon.

I see that from your main page that you are against edit warring on; however, you have been removing truthful and correctly-cited edits from the Grinnell College Wikipedia page. If you continue this behavior, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring.

Have a nice day,

Carragay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carragay (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article's talk page. The version of the article without the "dinner plate" addition is the status quo. To insert the edit requires a consensus that it is valid. Without proper sources, I can make no judgement on whether or not it is true. But I can say that it is not correctly-cited in that the email letter from college to students does not support: "Despite this high tuition, Grinnell College is unable to afford plates." That's what's known as original research. Also, your request on your talk page, Please do not add or change this content without citing a reliable source, such as your lived experience as a student who has had to suffer..., indicates that you might need to review what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Personal experience is definitely not deemed reliable. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about a reversion

Hi Willondon,

I recently inserted a wikilink to the article "United States" within the article "University of Minnesota". I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I'm wondering what the reasoning is for removing this wikilink so that I can improve for the future. It looks like you have editing experience, so I'd appreciate any advice.

Mattsnod1993 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

That would be this edit [5]. The edit summary has a link to "WP:OVERLINK". This outlines advice on things not to link to, generally common enough things that most readers will know, especially if the link will not add much to the reader's understanding of the article. In the case of University of Minnesota, you can look at the article at United States, and see that the large, very broad article there is not likely to provide any further insight. Overlinking in articles, known as a "sea of blue", makes it hard for the reader to identify links that really would help with understanding. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful explanation. Summary of advice as I understand it: keep links to those that help a reader understand an article; too many links dilute the relevant links ("sea of blue"). I'll plan on remembering that moving forward. Thanks again! Mattsnod1993 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No more vandalisms

I'm gonna stop making any of these vandalisms on each page for now on. So no more vandalisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaAvalonFan2004 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)